Glossary   Injection attacks

Injection attacks: How do cyberattacks threaten IT infrastructure?

The term 'injection attacks' refers to various criminal methods in cybersecurity, where attackers inject malicious code, manipulated commands, or spoofed video and biometric data directly into digital systems. In the context of digital identity verification, this specifically involves the injection of deepfakes or synthetic media to bypass the physical camera and spoof a false identity.

This form of cybercrime aims to alter the intended programme logic of software, gain unauthorised access to sensitive backend data structures, or take complete control of system functions. In a networked, API-driven IT landscape, these attacks pose a significant risk to the integrity of digital business processes and require uncompromising protective measures.

To prevent injection attacks, organisations must continuously monitor their entire cloud and software architecture. While traditional IT infrastructures primarily need to be protected against classic code injections, modern AI applications expand the threat landscape to include dynamic risks such as prompt injection and highly complex biometric injections via virtual devices, software tampering, emulators, or man-in-the-middle proxies. Moving forward, every digital onboarding journey and data-processing interface must ensure that user inputs and media streams remain strictly isolated from the internal execution layer.

How injection attacks work and their different types

The fundamental principle behind an injection attack is the insufficient separation between user input and executable programme code. If an application passes on input data without checking it, an attacker can exploit this interface as an entry point. At this stage, the software can no longer distinguish between legitimate commands or requests and the attacker's injected instructions.

Code injection as a primary threat

Code injection refers to the direct injection of source code into a running application, such as a website, app, or API interface. The server mistakenly interprets this input as part of its own software. This distinguishes the method from database-based variants, such as SQL injection, where attackers manipulate existing database queries to read or modify tables.

A successful code injection attack penetrates directly into the application layer. This enables third parties to execute system commands with the affected application's privileges, extract sensitive system files, or download malware in the background without being detected.

What is the difference between code injection and cross-site scripting (XSS)?

Although both are types of injection attacks, their primary objectives differ. In a code injection attack, the target is the server itself, with the aim of executing malicious code and gaining control of the entire system. In XSS attacks, on the other hand, attackers inject malicious code (usually JavaScript) into a webpage, which is then executed in the end user’s browser. Therefore, XSS attacks the client (the user), while code injection compromises the server infrastructure.

Modern attack vectors: prompt injection

The threat landscape of injection attacks has expanded significantly with the rapid proliferation of systems based on artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs). Prompt injection involves the targeted manipulation of systems using input prompts.

Attackers hide malicious instructions within the data or commands processed by an AI model or chatbot. These concealed commands can cause the model to bypass built-in security barriers, disclose confidential system prompts, reveal sensitive data, or carry out undesirable actions, such as the automated generation of phishing content or the manipulation of downstream database processes.

Regulatory compliance standards against the risk of injection attacks

Protection against such security vulnerabilities is a strict regulatory necessity for organisations, particularly in highly regulated sectors such as banking, insurance and telecommunications. International standards and European legislation require a demonstrably secure software and IT architecture in order to protect sensitive corporate and customer data.

• ISO/IEC 27001: This globally recognised certification requires robust security controls to be implemented throughout the application development process as part of an Information Security Management System (ISMS), systematically preventing vulnerabilities in the source code.
• NIS2 Directive: This European cybersecurity directive significantly strengthens obligations for operators of critical infrastructure and digital services. It requires organisations to implement strict risk management measures and safeguard their entire software supply chains against unauthorised tampering.
• DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act): Specifically targeting the financial sector, the DORA Regulation establishes a comprehensive framework to bolster digital operational resilience. Insurance companies and financial institutions must demonstrate that their core systems can withstand cyberattacks through technical defences and stress testing. As the legislation safeguards the entire digital chain, it applies in full to all third-party ICT service providers and their subcontractors providing critical functions for these institutions.

Successful attacks resulting in the unauthorised disclosure of personal data incur severe penalties under the GDPR. Regulatory authorities generally consider the presence of known code vulnerabilities to be a breach of the obligation to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures.

Defending against injection attacks: strategies for a secure system architecture

To effectively protect systems against unauthorised disablement or structural manipulation, developers and IT project managers must embed core security principles deeply throughout the entire system architecture. Retroactive security measures (patching) often prove inadequate and costly.

Important: input validation and data sanitisation

Applications must never blindly trust user input. Rigorous input validation checks all incoming data against a strict whitelist for explicitly permitted characters, lengths and formats before any internal processing takes place. As a result, vulnerable formats such as SVG images or JavaScript code snippets cannot be inserted into forms or other applications.

Subsequent sanitisation ensures that potential control characters are masked or rendered harmless. This ensures that downstream interpreters classify inputs as plain text and never as executable programme code.

The principle of least privilege

If a code injection succeeds despite upstream filtering measures, the principle of least privilege limits the potential scope of damage. Applications, APIs and their background processes should operate with only the absolute minimum system privileges required by default. This ensures that a compromised process cannot easily access the underlying operating system, neighbouring network nodes or protected master databases.

Distrust as a modern IT security paradigm

The principle of least privilege also forms the foundation of modern zero-trust architecture. In line with the principle 'Never trust, always verify', no user, device or data stream — whether inside or outside the network — is trusted by default. Such unverified trust could have severe IT consequences.

Every API query and document upload is continuously authenticated and processed in isolation. This ensures that, even if an injection attack theoretically succeeds, lateral movement into neighbouring systems is effectively blocked.

Relevance to digital business processes

Digital platforms depend fundamentally on continuous availability and absolute data integrity. An unpatched security vulnerability in input processing undermines the trust of customers, investors and partners over the long term. If business-critical core processes are manipulated, organisations face prolonged system outages, significant reputational damage, and direct financial losses from extortion or identity theft.

Organisations must therefore seamlessly integrate security checks into their digital onboarding and registration workflows. Browser-based processes in particular, which do not require downloading a native app, demand comprehensive server-side protection of all interfaces (APIs). Consequently, defending against cyber risks becomes a strategic stability factor — essential for enabling the secure onboarding and scaling of digital business models in regulated markets, rather than merely an IT cost factor.

How PXL Vision proactively defends against biometric injection attacks

Safeguarding the integrity of digital verification processes requires a multi-layered interplay of specialised defence mechanisms to counter biometric injection attacks. The European standard CEN/TS 18099 defines the relevant technical categories required for modern identity verification (IDV) systems:

• Defence against attack methods – IAMDM (Injection Attack Method Detection Mechanism): These mechanisms are designed to prevent tampering with the hardware or software environment. This includes detecting and blocking virtual webcams (e.g. OBS), browser automation tools, rooted devices, and emulators. It also involves securing transmission channels using TLS encryption and digital signatures. Analysing physical sensor data (e.g. IMU data from gyroscopes and accelerometers) to verify natural device movement also falls into this category.
• Defence against attack instruments – IAIDM (Injection Attack Instrument Detection Mechanism): These methods examine the specific injection medium used within the stream. This includes algorithms for analysing frame similarities (replay protection), as well as dynamic, server-controlled challenge-response procedures with unpredictable movement prompts.
• Standalone deepfake detection: While fake or synthetic media may be part of an injection attack, their detection occurs independently of pure injection detection. Specialised deepfake detectors analyse image and video material as a separate AI model to detect visual anomalies, artefacts, and lighting inconsistencies.

PXL Vision takes a consistent 'security by design' approach. As a technology enabler, we continuously evaluate these methods and gradually integrate them into our identification solutions.

Currently, PXL Vision is working intensively on implementing advanced defence features — such as server-side challenge-response verification and in-depth sensor analysis — with the clear goal of achieving certification in accordance with CEN/TS 18099 for the highest security levels (Level 2 Substantial / Level 3 High). In doing so, PXL Vision ensures that regulated institutions and partner organisations remain optimally protected against future injection scenarios.

Why preventive IT security determines business success

The threat posed by injection attacks demonstrates that IT security in the B2B environment is a continuous process, not a static state. As attackers constantly refine their methods through automated tools and artificial intelligence, defence mechanisms must evolve dynamically at a technical level. Taking a reactive approach after a security breach occurs fundamentally jeopardises the operational resilience of modern platform operators.

For forward-thinking organisations, resilience against cyber risks must be a core criteria when selecting technology partners. The risk of system manipulation can only be minimised by deploying systems that consistently isolate and validate data streams. Ultimately, uncompromising security across digital channels forms the essential foundation for securing long-term customer trust and scaling digital business processes sustainably and in full compliance.